Nice reseach Hasty. We have gone down the first time head coach road before. Herm, Carroll, Groh, Mangini, Rex. All were gone with only Rex having some success first two years. I prefer someone who had that job before and will know what better to do next time around. What kind of staff to hire and what identity they want for a team. But if they go first time I wish it would be Patricia. I know its a long shot but they need a guy who has coach both sides of the ball and he is one of the few that have as an assistant coach. Jim Schwartz and Todd Haley would be high on that list also. Coaches I don't want are Gruden , McDaniels and Shula.
Not staff a coach. Staff would be more than one coach and I wouldn't bring anyone back except Morton. There have been better coaches fired that had a better records than Bowles. So that logic is out the door. Macc is not tied to Bowles he should be able to get his guy to run the team. Whomever that would be is the question but it ain't Bowles. The guy is horrible and why would you want to bring him back? Another year of quotes like I have to look at the tape and more losses than wins.
So another year of this? No the Jets can't be that stupid. The banner to fire Bowles will fly all year because only Jets fans like subpar coaching. I could see him coming back if he were energized and creative. You would want to retain that but Bowles is in a coma for 4 quarters and his stubborness in not even attempting to change things up shows me he's a moron. Sticking with McCown means he's not accountable either. Many faults with this guy and he should fired. Not being able to recognize what is happening till next game is horrible.
I think Bowles should be fired after this year. Will it happen? Doubt it, because the Johnsons (and Bowles) DON'T MIND LOSING. Nobody LIKES to lose, but there are those like the Johnsons and Bowles who think that IF your team plays hard and you lose, well, you gave it your best shot, so don't worry about it. I think Johnson and Bowles would be thrilled just to be 8-8 every year. If they DO bring Bowles back, which they should not do but will, he should NOT get an extension prior to 2018 season. But I think he will--that is what they did with Rex, when everyone was calling for his head.. There is a STUPID "lame duck" mindset among owners, GMs, and even the media that an NFL coach must NEVER be on the final year of his contract. This theory, as I understand it, preaches that it is some kind of recipe for disaster to have someone coach "without contract security" because the players somehow worry about that and won't play hard for him--something stupid about "perceived continuity in the organization." After 2018, and another year with Bowles and McNown, the jets WILL end up firing Bowles, and then the owner/team will be on the hook for something like $15M, just like when the jets had to pay fired coach Rex Ryan because of the foolish extension they gave him before he became a supposedly "lame duck coach."
Yes Boozy, another year of this. McCown 2.0 is a certainty and so is Bowles 4.0. The Jets are not the kind of team that makes changes without something drastic happening. Banners had to fly over Metlife before Idzik got canned. It took 4 years after Rexy's back to back AFCCG losses to move on. Bowles has yet to make the playoffs but the groundwork for his return was already laid out by CJ early on with the "not based on wins/losses" criteria. All the Jets have to do is be competitive and Bowles keeps his job.. They don't have to WIN, just be competitive. Could the bar be set lower? Not without a trenching tool....
Depressing. Being competitive doesn't work for me and if the Giants can bench Eli Manning then the Jets certainly can bench McCown. We have to start eliminating somethings. Like can Petty run the offense. Otherwise they are gonna waste huge amounts of capital and draft picks on someone that might not either. If McCown is coming back why is Macc wasting time scouting Darnold and Rosen? He should be at the bargain basement QB talent pool. What I'm thinking we'll be drafting defense again in the first round.
I'll be so pleased when it's announced that Ty-D-Bols will be brought back next year... Fuckin ecstatic actually
Not sure if this situation would also have Mac fired, one guy who could be a left field candidate if so could be Scot McCloughan.
In order for Bowles to be fired then something would have to be his fault. But it never is. Similar to the Genobo excuses and their "who else are we gunna get" banter. But honestly, I think Bowles wins at least two of the next six games and he's shown enough to come back. KC and Denver are winnable games. I would say SD but their DL is going to go through our linemen like swiss cheese.
I had to like this post because of its accuracy, but on the inside it makes me sick and question why we continue to put ourselves through this crap year after year.
Only way I'd want Bowles back is if the Jets win out thier last 5 games and make the wild card at 9-7. Anything less than that, HIT THE BRICKS!
He's a very good at evaluating talent, but he has now failed his last two GM positions because of alcoholism. I'm not trying to say once an alcoholic always an alcoholic, but with a team that has missed the playoffs for the last 7 years, I would want the Jets to hire someone who will be there day in and day out, working his ass off to improve the team.
Is he the guy that has the alcohol drinking problem? Talented guy but he keeps losing jobs because of it. The Jets were trying to get him and lost out and then we lost again when Woody picked Idzik.
slightly OT but I disagree that he failed in washington because of alcoholism. As i live in the DMV, I know a lot of redskins fans and I don't think I know one who doesn't want him back. I thought that he was fired because Bruce Allen didn't agree with him on a lot and the Redskins fan base absolutely hates Allen.
this is a washington post article highlighting relapses - and functioning alcoholism How well did just-fired Redskins general manager Scot McCloughan perform his duties? It depends on the source. Redskins players and fans took a liking to McCloughan ever since his hiring two years ago, a risky proposition considering that this valued scout of collegiate football talent had left previous jobs in San Francisco and Seattle over alcohol issues. Just before taking the Redskins job, McCloughan said, “I can have a beer and I’m fine. I don’t need any more.” As Post sports writers Mike Jones and Liz Clarke explained in a Wednesday piece predicting McCloughan’s then-imminent firing: “It was widely known around the league that McCloughan had never stopped drinking even after joining the Redskins. However, several peers, when asked, all agreed they didn’t believe McCloughan’s drinking ever hindered his job.” On Thursday evening, The Post reported on McCloughan’s firing and included part of Redskins President Bruce Allen’s statement on the situation. In the next paragraph, The Post cited input from someone who cared not to place a name behind the following allegations. Again, consider the source: An official with direct knowledge of the situation attributed the decision to McCloughan’s ongoing problems with alcohol, which also led to his firing from front-office positions with the San Francisco 49ers in 2010 and Seattle Seahawks in 2014. “He’s had multiple relapses due to alcohol,” said the official, who spoke on a condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on personnel matters. “He showed up in the locker room drunk on multiple occasions. … This has been a disaster for 18 months.” More unnamed slams followed later in the piece: “He’s been drunk at work,” the team official said. “He’s been drunk at games.” As this blog has reported, mainstream media organizations have promulgated internal guidance discouraging the use of unnamed sources to criticize people. “We should not publish ad hominem quotations from unnamed sources,” reads The Post’s version. “Sources who want to take a shot at someone in our columns should do so in their own names.” BuzzFeed: “Avoid using anonymous sources for negative quotes.” NPR: “No attacks. In our coverage, anonymous or unnamed sources generally cannot make pejorative comments about the character, reputation, or personal qualities of another individual, or derogatory statements about an institution.” Why did The Post indulge an anonymous Redskins official to riff about the alleged alcohol-fueled misdeeds of the team’s general manager? Matt Vita, the newspaper’s sports editor, told the Erik Wemple Blog, “We gave those quotes very careful consideration and I am confident that they reflect the point of view of the Redskins team leadership.” This blog, too, is confident that the quotes reflect the point of view of the Redskins team leadership. That’s the problem here. As Deadspin’s Barry Petchesky points out: “Would anyone put it past [Redskins owner Daniel] Snyder to put this stuff out there just to make it easier to justify firing him for cause, and escape the remaining two years on McCloughan’s contract?” The other problem with this use of anonymity is its lack of rigor. At their very best, anonymous sources are marshaled to substantiate specific events and circumstances — such as The Post’s use of nine anonymous sources to bolster a news-breaking story about another prominent, fired Washington figure. In the case of McCloughan, The Post cited one anonymous source to allege, in effect, that a team official went about his duties in an alcoholic haze. What does McCloughan say about those anonymous quotes? Did The Post ensure that the former GM knew what was coming? “I’m confident that Scot was aware of that,” said Vita. “We’ve been trying for several days if not weeks to talk to Scot. Multiple reporters have made overtures.” To its credit, The Post was careful to document the counter-story: “Of a half-dozen Redskins players reached Thursday afternoon, none said they had ever seen McCloughan drink in the locker room. All but one said they never saw him act as if he weren’t composed and in control. They added that they never felt he wasn’t able to do his job, and they seemed surprised the question was being raised.” Also receiving emphasis was the “strained relationship between Allen and McCloughan that grew more pronounced as the season unfolded, highlighted by disagreements on personnel decisions, what appeared to be professional jealousy and at least one profane rebuke.” That’s important context for anyone wishing to evaluate the provenance of the anonymous criticisms. Paul Woody of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, who has been covering sports for decades, used his own experience on the beat to tilt at the issue: “Given Scot McCloughan’s history, you wondered,” wrote Woody. “When he arrived at training camp practices, his face red, and not the kind of red that occurs from being in the sun too long, you wondered. When you talked to him coming off the field after a summer practice and got a whiff of what smelled like alcohol on his breath, you wondered.” We asked Vita whether his sports reporters could have provided a similar account. He declined to comment on that matter. Somewhere in the corridors of Redskins Park lies the truth about McCloughan’s tenure with the team. Somehow, we just don’t trust an unnamed Redskins official to elucidate it. We do, however, trust an unnamed Redskins official to be mean and reprehensible. Let that official use Snyder’s own media platforms for that stuff. Unless this is a spin job to make the redskins brass to look smarter, not sure I'm gonna believe he's clean of alcohol
I only think we should bring Scot McCloughan to our front office if we plan to make Johnny Manziel our starting QB.
